SITARA LAL Vs. SHIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision has arisen out of a family dispute.

(2.) Sitara Lal petitioner is the father. An adult son of his by the name of Shiv Kumar, joining with him his two minor sons (grand-sons of Sitara Lal) filed a suit for partition of coparcenary property and rendition of accounts. Besides impleading his father Sitara Lal, he impleaded his other brothers also. Besides them, some other parties were impleaded. An application was moved in the trial Court by Sitara Lal claiming that in Punjab a son cannot sue the father for partition or claim any interest in the ancestral coparcenary property during his lifetime and thus the suit should be dismissed as not maintainable. The application was resisted. However, it was conceded before the trial Court that in Punjab, a son is not entitled to claim partition of coparcenary property against his father. The learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Nabha, non-suited the plaintiff on this score at the preliminary stage but held that a suit for rendition of accounts of the income of the coparcenary property could not be thrown out. It is this view of the matter which is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition.

(3.) So far as the impediment to the son in Punjab in claiming partition is concerned, the matter is not res integra. Two Full Benches i.e. 1917 Punjab Records No.105(Hari Kishen v. Chandu Lal) and (Satish Narain v. Deoki Nandan, AIR 1947 Lah 372) carefully discovered the principle that in Punjab a son is not entitled to ask for partition of the coparcenary property, the manager of which is the father, without the latter's consent. Those are based on the principles of Hindu Law as culled out in various treatises on the subject. However, with regard to the right of the son to have rendition of accounts of the income of the coparcenary property, no precedent of this Court has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff-respondents despite being served have not put in appearance. In the situation, as at present advised, paras 235 and 237 of 'Mulla : Principles of Hindu Law', seem to me to govern the issue unmistakably :